Tag Archives: freedom of speech
February 7, 2015

Raif Badawi: Our Right to Free Speech must not be taken lightly

Saudia-Arabia-Free-Speech-PFTR

Here in North America we take our Right to Freedom of Speech for granted. We criticize our government with abandon and gusto, confident we are safe from retaliation; that there is no price to be paid for speaking our mind. We forget the rest of the world doesn’t take so kindly to criticism.

In Saudi Arabia, for example, criticizing the government comes at a very high cost. In Saudi Arabia it is a crime to speak about things the government disapproves.

Blogger Raif Badawi learned that lesson the hard way. Convicted of crimes against the state, specifically for operating a blog and discussion forum that ridiculed Saudi Arabia’s religious police, Badawi was arrested in 2012 and put on trial.

His conviction was automatic and never in question.

His penalty? One thousand lashes with a bamboo cane and ten years in prison. No, that’s not a misprint. Ten thousand lashes with a bamboo cane, to be delivered 50 per week for 20 consecutive weeks.

I cannot imagine being flogged with a cane 50 times, let alone 50 times a week for the next 20 weeks in a row. Just kill me and get it over with!

Just after Friday prayers on 9 January, Raif Badawi was led by Saudi officials out of a bus and into the middle of the square in front of al-Jafali mosque in Jeddah. A large crowd had gathered to see the flogging.

Raif stood in the middle of the crowd, handcuffed and shackled by his ankles, his face uncovered. A security officer approached Raif and began caning him across the back and legs, until he had been beaten 50 times. A witness told us it took just five minutes to cane Raif 50 times; the lashes were constant and quick.

I can only commend Raif Badawi for his incredible courage. He took his first 50 canings silently, determined not to give his abusers the satisfaction of hearing him cry out in pain.

I can only pray that in similar circumstances I would have that same courage.

‘Raif raised his head towards the sky, closing his eyes and arching his back. He was silent, but you could tell from his face and his body that he was in real pain.’

The public outcry around the world at the brutality of the sentence actually forced the Saudi administration to backpedal, even if only temporarily, from implementing the rest of the sentence.

Doctors examined Badawi after the first flogging of 50 lashes and determined he has not healed enough to take a second 50 lashes even after two weeks of postponed canings; that to flog him again before his would are healed would threaten his life.

While nobody in Canada will be caned repeatedly for speaking their mind that does not mean we are without our faults. The now-repealed Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act was used to silence individuals, often with crushing monetary penalties even though the Act was supposedly “remedial” in nature, not punitive.

Marc Lemire’s 10-year fight to preserve his right to freedom of speech, for example, caused Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act to be repealed. Lemire’s refusal to cave in to censorship eventually forced the government to strike Section 13 from the books. The irony of that decision is that even though Lemire beat the censors at their own game he may still lose his rights under that repealed section of law.

Found guilty for publishing a document he did not write and didn’t even know existed on his website until he faced prosecution, Lemire faces a lifetime ban on his freedom of speech should he lose his last court appeal.

Arthur Topham faces prison time for daring to speak his mind on his own website, RadicalPress.com as he faces criminal charges under Canada’s hate crimes legislation contained in Section 318 – 320 of the criminal code.

From the November 6, 2012 National Post story on the charges against Arthur Topham:

Mr. Topham is a miner and is listed as secretary of the Cariboo Mining Association. He also publishes Radical Press, a website that posts materials with conspiracy theory themes such as the “Biological Jew” and the “Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.”

[Editor’s Note: Both books are widely available on the internet free of charge and at such purveyors of hate as Amazon.com and Archive.org.]

The Biological Jew depicts Jews as parasites that suck the blood from their “host” societies while the Protocols is a fraudulent book that purports to describe a conspiracy for worldwide Jewish domination.

In May, Harry Abrams, a B’nai Brith volunteer in Victoria, B.C., and Ottawa lawyer Richard Warman both complained to police about the website. Mr. Warman’s complaint said both the Biological Jew and the Protocols were banned from import into Canada as hate propaganda.

“When you’ve got that kind of just rabid attack against the Jewish community I think it’s incumbent on people to stand up in society,” said Mr. Warman, who regularly files complaints about racist websites.

While Mr. Topham does face the prospect of jail time for speaking his mind he will not be flogged mercilessly with a cane by agents of the state.

Does that mean Canada has no issues when it comes to Freedom of Speech?

Hardly.

Instead of defending our Right to Free Speech all levels of government seem insistent that dissenting voices must be silenced, and at almost any cost.

We must not offend Muslims, Jews, First Nations or practically anyone except white Christian males. On that particular group of faithful it’s “open season” with no end of that particular hypocrisy in sight.

Yes, we still have a very long way to go if our Right to Freedom of Speech is to actually mean something.

Eventually we will strike down the “hate speech” section of the Criminal Code as well, leaving ideas, both good and bad, to the court of public opinion which is precisely where they belong.

If you enjoy the articles I write here on PostcardsFromTheRight.com, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

November 27, 2014

Censorship Essential to Combat Terrorism says British Prime Minister David Cameron

Censorship-Essential-to-Combat-Terrorism-says-British-Prime-Minister-David-Cameron-PFTR
Pete Snelson liked this post

Censorship-Essential-to-Combat-Terrorism-says-British-Prime-Minister-David-Cameron-PFTR

Governments of all kinds despise Freedom of Speech. Dictatorships despise it because, if allowed, their detractors relentlessly denigrate them and their lack of integrity. Democracies despise Freedom of Speech for precisely the same reason. Freedom of Speech allows mere citizens to comment upon the actions of their so-called leaders, both good and bad.

The United Nations despises Freedom of Speech because when a free people discusses the worthiness or lack thereof of that wannabe world government it is obvious that organization is found…. wanting.

Governments of all kinds despise the Internet and the Freedom of Speech it affords mere citizens the world over. They despise how easily an individual on one side of the planet can share ideas with another individual on the other about the issues they face.

Governments, both tyrannical dictatorships and alleged democracies alike, desperately need to silence their citizens on the internet. So far, the goal of stripping the citizens of the world of their Right to Freedom of Speech has failed, but never fear: Government will always find a bogeyman to blame for the “need” to strip us of our rights.

A trial balloon went up in Britain this past week as British Prime Minister David Cameron declared the “new and pressing challenge” facing that nation and the world is to strip the Internet of Free Speech.

Of course, David Cameron didn’t use that language. He used language far more likely to garner support from the masses who have lost their ability to think critically about the task at hand.

Prime Minister David Cameron used the newest and brightest bogeyman of them all, terrorism, as his rationale for stripping the world of free speech on the internet.

The “new and pressing challenge is getting extremist material taken down from the internet. We must not allow the internet to be an ungoverned space,” Cameron decried.

Cameron demanded British Internet Service Providers (ISPs) create filters for “harmful material” and the “extremist narrative” he deemed to be the instigator of terrorist activity the world over.

This is the “root cause” of terrorism so far as David Cameron is concerned and, in his view, radical Muslims will no longer chop off people’s heads on the streets of Britain or anywhere else once the Internet is appropriately sanitized.

He’s completely out to lunch, of course, but that did not stop him from ordering Britain’s ISPs to comply with his demands. Unfortunately for British citizens, those companies caved fully, completely and immediately.

The UK’s major Internet service providers – BT, Virgin, Sky and Talk Talk – have this week committed to host a public reporting button for terrorist material online, similar to the reporting button which allows the public to report child sexual exploitation.

They have also agreed to ensure that terrorist and extremist material is captured by their filters to prevent children and young people coming across radicalising material.

David Cameron wholeheartedly supports censorship… so long as he is the one who determines what gets censored, and therein lies the problem with censorship.

“We are making progress but there is further to go. This is their [ISPs] social responsibility. And we expect them to live up to it,” the prime minister added.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, it is said, and so is censorship. “Permitted speech” is in the eye of the censor, and God help anyone who gets on the wrong side of The Censor.

Cameron neatly sidesteps the actual root causes of terrorism, such as poverty and the foreign policy of Britain and other western nations, and places the blame on freedom of speech on the internet instead.

“And let us be frank. It’s not poverty, though of course our nations are united in tackling deprivation wherever it exists. It’s not exclusion from the mainstream. Of course we have more to do but we are both successful multicultural democracies where opportunities abound.

“And it’s not foreign policy. I can show you examples all over the world where British aid and British action have saved millions of Muslim lives, from Kosovo to Syria – but that is not exactly the real point. In our democracies, we must never give in to the idea that disagreeing with a foreign policy in any way justifies terrorist outrages.”

The root cause was in fact the “extremist narrative”, Cameron said.

Freedom of Speech is the cause of all the world’s ills. It’s that darned Free Speech on the internet that’s the culprit, don’t you know.

Well, I didn’t know but I’m so very grateful David Cameron set me straight.

You just can’t let people say anything they want! God knows what crazy things they’ll say!

How long until Australian, American and Canadian governments order their Internet Service Providers to censor internet content to their liking? It is the wet dream of every president and prime minister on the planet; the ability to control what their people say, read and hear, and therefore what they think.

There remains only one question to be asked, really.

How long will it be until my protesting censorship is considered “extremist material” unsuited for the eyes of my fellow mere citizens?

If you enjoy the articles I write here on PostcardsFromTheRight.com, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

June 16, 2014

Peoria Mayor Jim Ardis – Just Another Tyrannical Douchebag?

Peoria-Mayor-Jim-Ardis-Douchebag-PFtR

Peoria-Mayor-Jim-Ardis-Douchebag-PFtR

Peoria Mayor Jim Ardis: if you can’t handle being mocked stop being a politician. Mocking and ridicule come with the territory so either get a thicker skin or get yourself a new job. Wasting police resources to harass those who oppose you is the act of a tyrant, not a mayor.

Peoria Mayor Jim Ardis was so worried about a parody Twitter account with all of 50 posts and 50 followers he sent the Peoria Police Department on a 3-week chase of the heinous offender who created @peoriamayor (now defunct).

Bizarrely, three separate judges signed off on warrants for this case; one warrant for the Twitter account information, another for the ComCast subscriber information and the third was a search warrant for the home identified by the user’s IP address as identified by ComCast.

Violating the rights of this mere citizen is not only condoned but demanded by Mayor Jim Ardis. Freedom of Speech exists only for Jim Ardis, I suppose, and not for any of the citizens he presides over.

When police finally found the man responsible for mocking their mayor, one Jonathan Daniel, they descended like good little Police State thugs, with all the might they could muster. Since Jonathan Daniel committed no crime they dug through his possessions (illegally) until they found some marijuana.

They arrested Jonathan Daniel’s roommate, charged him with possession and held him on $3,000 bail, after seizing iPhones (2), XBox game controllers (2), private mail, digital memory cards and “drug paraphernalia”, whatever that means.

Presumably one of the cops needed new XBox controllers for his own system? Can’t imagine how else they can rationalize the seizure…

The only reason Daniel faced criminal charges at all is they had to charge him with something… how else do they justify this massive waste of police time and resources?

The crime of mocking one’s mayor is… well… no crime at all. Freedom of expression protects we mere citizens from such attacks by the overzealous minions of the state, or at least they ought to and that’s the point behind the lawsuit filed by Jonathan Daniel.

Jonathan Daniel says police, acting under the specific direction of Mayor Jim Ardis, violated his civil rights.

From March 9 through March 19, 2014, Mr. Daniel tweeted from a Twitter account, @peoriamayor, which used a picture of Jim Ardis (“Ardis”), the mayor of Peoria, as the account’s avatar. Displeased with the content of the tweets, Defendants embarked on a plan to shut down the account and identify and punish its creator in violation of his constitutional rights. As part of Defendants’ plan, Peoria Police Department officers searched Mr. Daniel’s residence, seized his personal property, reviewed personal information on Mr. Daniel’s electronic devices and in his mail, and arrested, detained, and interrogated Mr. Daniel purportedly for the crime of false personation of a public official.

Good for Jonathan Daniel for standing up for himself in the face of such blatant abuse of power.

If there is any sense of actual justice left in Illinois (and I wouldn’t bet on it given 3 separate judges issued search warrants in this case) then Jonathan Daniel’s win will be a slam-dunk.

 

If you enjoy the articles I write here on PostcardsFromTheRight.com, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

May 10, 2014

Are you offended by something I said?

Stephen-Fry-Quote-PFTR
Ryan Steacy, Mike Ackermann liked this post

The problem with some folks is they can’t accept the fact an opinion exists of which they don’t approve. Freedom of speech is okay but only if you agree with their opinions.  The problem with politicians is they feel compelled to pander to the people who cannot accept another’s point of view.

Combine the two (incessant whiners and politicians) and you get nightmares like the Canadian Human Rights Act and Section 318 of the Criminal Code, both of which create special status for “special” people, leaving the rest of us mere citizens out in the cold.

Not only are we left out in the cold, we now have the full weight of government to contend with any time we say something one of the protected class of whiners doesn’t like.

Shockingly, one isn’t required to be a member of a protected class in order to file a complaint on their behalf. ‘I’m outraged for you’ appears to be the operational basis here, and a very profitable one for some.

Try saying anything outside of the mainstream politically-correct view about any of the following folks and you will quickly discover the error of believing you actually have a Right to Freedom of Speech:

“any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.”

As in George Orwell’s Animal Farm, some pigs are truly more equal than others.

White heterosexual Christian males need not apply, however. You are NOT one of the “protected classes” of people despite having an actual religion, sexuality and race. Put another way, you’re not quite as equal as others.

Am I saying every member of these protected groups is a whiner? Of course not. I blame gutless politicians for pandering to special interest groups more than I do those lobbying on their behalf.

To live is to offend someone, somewhere along the way. Do we really need a group of bureaucratic thugs to beat us into submission simply because our view of the world is different than theirs?

Here in Canada the answer is a resounding YES!

Ask Marc Lemire, Connie Fournier or Arthur Topham. Each of these individuals suffered the crushing weight of bureaucratic excess, and often for sentiments they never even wrote.

Marc Lemire faces a lifetime free speech ban for an article posted on his website. He didn’t write the article. He didn’t even post the article himself, yet the screaming banshees at the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal consider him more of a threat to the “Canadian way of life” than… well pretty much any violent criminal.

To date the Canadian people have wasted over a quarter million dollars prosecuting Marc Lemire… and for what? An article he didn’t even write that was read by perhaps 10 people worldwide?

Connie Fourier finally shuttered FreeDominion.ca after being found guilty of defamation of serial human rights complainant Richard Warman. The final straw for Ms. Fournier was the condition she be held liable for any negative comments made by anyone, at any time in the future, about Richard Warman.

That ruling’s phrasing would even allow Richard Warman, for example, to log onto FreeDominion.ca and post something negative about himself and still trigger the full weight of the law on Ms. Fournier. It’s utterly absurd for Connie Fournier to he beld accountable for the comments of another, yet that’s now the law of the land here in Canada.

Arthur Topham wrote something about someone or some group of someones that offended another someone who complained to both the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the RCMP. Arthur Topham now faces charges under both the Canadian Human Rights Act and Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

Nobody will tell Topham what he wrote that was so offensive. Instead they demand he defend everything he ever wrote from six months before his arrest until… well.. whenever he might finally get his day in court. That’s right. Every word Mr. Topham writes until his trial can and will be used by Crown prosecutors to show what a heinous threat he is to both the Canadian Way of Life and The World as We Know It.

Yeah, there’s justice for you!

While I would hope our Canadian skins are thick enough to tolerate offensiveness in others… apparently we can only tolerate our own offensiveness. That our attitudes may actually offend others is completely missed in the rush to fend off some perceived slight.

Like Stephen Fry so bluntly said, if you’re offended by what I say, “…so fucking what?”

Get over yourself already.

Dismantle every so-called “human rights” tribunal and commission across Canada. If they were ever needed (I doubt it) their “best before” date expired long ago and are now simply vehicles for punishing those with whom we disagree.

Abusing our fellow citizen is not a “Canadian value” simply because we disagree with what he or she says.

Or at least it shouldn’t be.

Stephen-Fry-Quote-PFTR

If you enjoy the articles I write here on PostcardsFromTheRight.com, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

May 6, 2014

Flashing Your Headlights to Warn of Police Ahead is NOT a Crime

Flashing-Your-Headlights-is-NOT-a-Crime-PFTR
Mike Ackermann liked this post

It’s a simple, common-sense ruling, and one founded in that most basic right of all, Freedom of Speech.  Just like honking your horn as you pass by people holding a sign like “Honk if you Support Our Troops” is legal, so is flashing your headlights to warn oncoming drivers of police in their path.

So says Oregon Judge Joseph Carter.

Hauling a truckload of logs to a Southern Oregon mill last fall, Chris Hill noticed a sheriff’s deputy behind him and flashed his lights to warn a UPS driver coming the other way.

The deputy pulled over Hill on U.S. Highway 140 in White City and handed him a $260 ticket for improperly using his headlights, saying another deputy had seen the flashing lights from behind the UPS truck and alerted him to stop the log truck because of the signaling.

Chris Hill, outraged at being ticketed for expressing himself, fought the ticket in court and in early April, 2014 Judge Carter dismissed the traffic citation.

Jackson County Justice Court judge dismissed the citation, finding that motorists flashing their headlights amounts to speech protected by the Oregon Constitution.

Judge Joseph Carter determined the law covering the use of high beams was valid, but was unconstitutional as it was applied by the deputy.

The citation was clearly given to punish the Defendant for that expression,” the judge wrote.

“The government certainly can and should enforce the traffic laws for the safety of all drivers on the road. However, the government cannot enforce the traffic laws, or any other laws, to punish drivers for their expressive conduct.”

In this age of “revenue by traffic citation” it is very refreshing to see a judge uphold the rights of a mere citizen against the almighty Minions of the State.

Common sense says one should drive with low-beam headlights when there is oncoming traffic.  The law supporting that also makes sense, as it can be a danger to others when someone is blinded by oncoming high-beams.  However, common sense flies out the window when that law is used to punish a mere citizen for exercising his or her Right to Freedom of Speech simply because the mechanism of that Free Speech is flashing one’s high-beams.

Dave Fidanque, director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon, noted the Oregon Court of Appeals overturned a traffic law prohibiting horn honking for non-traffic purposes on similar grounds in the 1990s after a number of people got tickets for honking in support of U.S. troops during the Gulf War.

If the motive of the sheriff’s deputies was in fact not to make the roads safer, but to raise more revenue from traffic enforcement, that would be even more reason why it should be  unconstitutional,” Fidanque said. “If this is part of a pattern, then it probably would be worth us looking into it in more detail.”

Free Speech takes many forms.  It appears the minions of the almighty state don’t like we mere citizens exercising that right in as many ways as possible.  Thank God for judges like Oregon Judge Joseph Carter, who takes the concept of Free Speech seriously, just as he should.

 

Flashing-Your-Headlights-is-NOT-a-Crime-PFTR

Traffic rules applied solely for the purpose of generating revenue for the State is a heinous affront to liberty.  This affront is not unique to Oregon or even America.  It happens routinely here in Canada as well.

Recently there was an expose on Sun TV about a man who spends his free time recording police making traffic stops on a particularly stupid street in one of Ontario’s urban centers.

There is a no left turn sign at a particular intersection.  Obeying that sign means a long circuitous detour to get there.  Disobeying it means chancing an expensive ticket, and given the visibility of police down the street from that intersection it’s become a favourite spot to generate revenue for the city.

Access to Information requests prove this out.  Astonishingly, far less tickers are issued when this man videotapes police than when he does not.  Those same Access to Information requests prove that too.

 

If you enjoy the articles I write here on PostcardsFromTheRight.com, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

February 23, 2014

Should Arthur Topham Have Sexually Assaulted 23 Women Instead?

Arthur-Topham-Banner-PFTR

Arthur-Topham-Banner-PFTR

That may seem a strange title for an article about our legal system, but after reading about Campbell Ernest Crichton, the former Duncan, BC, physiotherapist who faces charges he sexually assaulted at least 23 of his former patients, it seems to be the correct title.

A February 21, 2014, article in The Province started thus:

A hearing has been ordered in the case of a former physiotherapist who successfully argued he was too poor to pay for a lawyer to defend himself against charges he sexually assaulted 23 female patients.

Last year Campbell Ernest Crichton of Duncan, B.C., had his charges temporarily set aside after a judge found he was indigent and needed a government-funded lawyer for the complex criminal trial.

Anyone following my writings on Freedom of Speech will be well familiar with the case of Arthur Topham, the Quesnel, BC, publisher of RadicalPress.com, and alternative news website.

Mr. Topham currently faces criminal charges under Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada for “inciting hatred” against an identifiable group.

What, you ask, is the connection between Arthur Topham’s Freedom of Speech case and an [alleged] degenerate serial sex offender?

Quite simply, neither man can afford legal counsel for their criminal trials.

In the case of the [alleged] sex offender B.C. Supreme Court Justice Keith Bracken said there was a “real and substantial” risk to Crichton’s right to a fair trial if if did not have legal counsel. As a result of that “real and substantial” risk Justice Bracken ordered Crichton be provided a government-funded lawyer.

Arthur Topham is facing criminal charges for exercising his Right to Freedom of Speech. There is no “victim” here other than a few people whose actions lead me to believe they self-identify as victims. Topham sexually assaulted nobody. He physically harmed nobody. He never forced a single person on Planet Earth to read what he wrote.

Despite those facts Arthur Topham’s right to a fair trial with adequate legal counsel seems unimportant to the very same judiciary that ruled an [alleged] serial sex offender ought to have a government-funded lawyer.

Arthur Topham is not a wealthy man. He’s a modest man living on modest means in his rural home outside of Quesnel, BC.

His application for legal aid was denied. His application for government funding under what is known as a Rowbotham Application was similarly denied.

By these standards it is far more important that a sexual deviant’s rights be safeguarded than a man who dared write a few words someone found objectionable.

That is a very dangerous precedent to set.

Sending a man to prison for the words he writes out to scare the crap out of every single writer in Canada. Sure, today it’s Topham’s views that are “politically incorrect” and therefore fair game for our legal system, but what about tomorrow? Whose views will be deemed “incorrect” then? Who will stand up for you?

Campbell Ernest Crichton is charged with sexually abusing 23 human beings. That is real, substantial physical and emotional trauma all for one sick man’s own sexual gratification.

There are real human victims.

Arthur Topham wrote an article someone didn’t like. For that the BC Hate Crimes Unit of the RCMP and the BC Attorney General want to send Mr. Topham to prison, while refusing him any chance of a true legal defense.

Shouldn’t we be far more concerned about sexual predators?

Nope. We’ll happily pay their legal fees and send that darned writer to prison.

After all, ideas are far more dangerous than sexual predators, right?

If you enjoy the articles I write here on PostcardsFromTheRight.com, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

December 23, 2012

Arthur Topham & RadicalPress.com Hate Crime Trial – Freedom of Speech Legal Case Update

Arthur-Topham-Fundraising

Arthur-Topham-Fundraising

On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 Arthur Topham was back in the Quesnel, BC, Court house for his latest attempt at a bail hearing. The regular Judge presiding over Arthur’s case was unable to attend so a female judge, M. Church, heard the application instead.

Crown Council Jennifer Johnston opened by giving Judge Church a brief overview of the case, including Crown’s reasons why she has still not provided Topham’s lawyer, Douglas Christie, with full disclosure in the case.

She claimed that almost 5 months from the time of Arthur Topham’s arrest on May 16, 2012 until October 9, 2012 was insufficient time to gather enough evidence for an indictment against Mr. Topham. She also claimed this somehow justified not providing Mr. Christie with full disclosure, despite two previous promises to the judge to do so.

Mr. Topham had received a disclosure document from Mr. Christie that was not marked confidential in any way. Mr. Topham shared this document with a friend via email and portions of that document subsequently were found in an article in the National Post. According to Crown Council Jennifer Johnston, this is why she refused to divulge any more disclosure documents to Mr. Christie.

The issue of the leaked disclosure was addressed first and Mr. Christie told that Judge that he would have no problem with the Court issuing an Order stating that in future neither he nor Arthur Topham would disclose any confidential information to any third parties not directly connected to the case, and definitely not for publication.

Doug Christie then commenced his argument by referencing a host of case law where he outlined for the Judge many precedents for the legal right of publishers and writers to criticize both Jews and Zionists. Christie cited articles in mainstream publications, such as the New York Times, making the point that no particular group is exempt from public criticism.

Regarding Topham’s criticism of the RCMP, Doug Christie pointed out to the court the RCMP is certainly not above criticism and, given their current atrocious public image, he didn’t think Crown’s argument in defense of them was even worthy of consideration.

Lastly, he also made it clear that Crown’s attempt to curtail Mr. Topham’s Charter Rights to Freedom of Expression before he was even convicted of any crime was absurd. To a priori assume that whatever Mr. Topham is publishing is “hatred” and then ask the court to impose such a severe curtailment upon his Charter rights should not even be considered in Canada.

Doug Christie concluded his arguments approximately 4:15 p.m., at which time he informed the Judge he had a plane to catch at 5 p.m.

The Crown tried to refute all of Mr. Christie’s arguments and told the Judge that because Mr. Topham was charged with a “hate crime” the Crown could impose whatever restrictions they wanted on him.

The Judge reserved her decision, telling both sides she would consider the arguments and submit a request to another body (it is not known which body she meant) for further clarification in early January, after which she would notify Crown and Defence of her decision.

This state of affairs leaves Arthur Topham free to exercise his Right to Freedom of Speech for the moment, as well as to access the internet.

This is good news, if only temporary, but there is a long legal battle ahead for Mr. Topham.

If you are able, please mail a donation in support of his Right to Freedom of Speech to:

Arthur Topham
Attn: Free Speech Legal Defense Fund
4633 Barkerville Highway
Quesnel, B.C. Canada V2J 6T8

To support Arthur Topham’s fight against our “hate” laws and Internet Censorship via PayPal, please go to either http://www.radicalpress.com or http://www.quesnelcariboosentinel.com. The PayPal button is in the right hand corner on either site.

RadicalPress-Logo-640x168

QuesnelSentinelHeaderFinal-640x183

 

If you enjoy the articles I write here on PostcardsFromTheRight.com, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

December 22, 2012

Marc Lemire Case – Canadian Human Rights Commission wants a Lifetime Ban on his Freedom of Speech

Marc-Lemire-Faces-Lifetime-Ban-on-his-Freedom-of-Speech

Marc-Lemire-Faces-Lifetime-Ban-on-his-Freedom-of-Speech

I had a long conversation with Marc Lemire on Wednesday evening, December 19, 2012.

For those not familiar with his name, Marc Lemire is the one and only man to ever win a case against the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC). Until Lemire was hauled before this Kangaroo Court the Canadian Human Rights Commission had a 100% conviction rate.

No-Freedom-of-Speech-250x238It’s really not that hard when the Truth is no defense and the “judge” can disallow any evidence you present without justifying that action.

Anyway, there was a development in his case this week that does not bode well for the Rights and Freedoms of ALL Canadians. Marc Lemire just happens to be the person being terrorised in this particular manner today.

It is important to remember a few things about Marc Lemire’s case.

1. As soon as Marc Lemire was made aware of the complaints against him, he removed the “offending material” from his website.

2. Despite the “offending material” being removed from the internet, the CHRC refused to drop the case against Mr. Lemire.

3. Repeated attempts by Marc Lemire and his lawyer Barbara Kulaszka at mediation with the CHRC was refused. This wasn’t about “remediation” as the law says, but about silencing individuals with whom the CHRC disagrees.

4. Marc Lemire was found “guilty” of a single infraction. That infraction was for a post on his website that he did NOT create, and contained an article written by an American author. Marc Lemire had nothing to do with the “offending” post, other than to host the website it was on.

5. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in Marc Lemire’s case admitted that Section 13 of the Human Rights Act is unconstitutional.

6. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in Marc Lemire’s case refused to administer the penalty against him because they knew it was unconstitutional.

7. The Canadian Parliament has already repealed Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. It is waiting for the Canadian Senate to pass it as well, which will happen early this coming year, and then Section 13 will be repealed.

Marc Lemire - Censored by the Canadian Human Rights Commission

Marc Lemire – Censored by the Canadian Human Rights Commission

8. Despite all these facts, the boneheads at the CHRC are now pushing for a lifetime BAN on Marc Lemire’s Freedom of Speech while they still can.

They’re desperate to implement their ban on Marc Lemire while this atrocious law is still on the books.

Once Lemire is stripped of his Freedom of Speech by a federal court order, it won’t matter if Section 13 is repealed or ruled unconstitutional. The lifetime ban will still apply.

That is wrong on so many levels I don’t even know where to begin.

Marc Lemire is now battling for his (and OUR) Right to Freedom of Speech on two fronts.

First, at the Federal Court of Appeals, where he is appealing the finding of Justice Mosley. Mosley found that Section 13 was constitutional, but that Section 54 (the penalty clause) was not.

It’s an absurd decision and one that Marc Lemire is fighting to overturn with his appeal. Lemire has also filed a 240 page motion to the Federal Court of Appeals requesting a stay of the earlier Federal Court ruling so the CHRC cannot issue a lifetime speech ban against him.

Second, at the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, where Lemire will fight the proposed lifetime ban.

If Freedom of Speech is important to you, then please give generously to Marc Lemire’s Legal Defense Fund. He desperately needs your help as he fights for the Right to Freedom of Speech for ALL Canadians.

You can donate with your check via Canada Post, payable to:

Marc Lemire
Attn: Free Speech Legal Defence Fund
762 Upper James St, Suite 384
Hamilton, ON L9C 3A2

If you would prefer to give online, please send your donation via PayPal.

Anyone giving $50 or more to Marc Lemire’s Legal Defense Fund will receive a digital copy of Lemire’s book Dismantling Tyranny.

 

Remember… The choice is Free Speech or Approved Speech. If Marc Lemire loses this case, Canadians will forever be subjected to “Approved Speech” by minions of The State.

That’s not the kind of Canada I want to live in, and I hope you feel the same. Support Marc Lemire’s fight for OUR Right to Freedom of Speech without government intervention.

If you enjoy the articles I write here on PostcardsFromTheRight.com, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

November 25, 2012

A Resounding SLAPP in the face for Politicians Wishing to Stifle our Freedom of Speech

A-Resounding-SLAPP-in-the-face-for-Politicians-Wishing-to-Stifle-our-Freedom-of-Speech

A-Resounding-SLAPP-in-the-face-for-Politicians-Wishing-to-Stifle-our-Freedom-of-Speech

Freedom of Speech is the fundamental right of every Canadian. This right is, first and foremost, a protection for those of us who speak out about public affairs and public people.

Our Right to Freedom of Speech trumps a politician’s desire to punish those who would say unkind things about her.

If an individual runs for public office, we mere citizens have every right to comment on both their actions and character, and any politician too thin-skinned to deal with that should find something else to do.

Thin-skinned crybaby Phyllis Morris

Thin-skinned crybaby Phyllis Morris

One such thin-skinned politician is the former mayor of Aurora, Ontario, from 2006 until December 1, 2010: Phyllis Morris.

In October of 2010 Morris ran for reelection. By most accounts she wasa pretty lousy mayor, and many news sources commented on her lack of leadership ability, perceived or otherwise.

One critical source was the Aurora Citizen, an online news website aimed at keeping the citizens of Aurora informed about the antics of their elected politicians.Then-mayor Phyllis Morris took exception to an article and subsequent comments about her published on the Aurora Citizen website.

In keeping with her strong beliefs of Freedom and Liberty for all, Phyllis Morris did what all defenders of freedom do when faced with critical opposition: she filed a lawsuit against everyone she could think of to shut them up.

She filed suit against Richard Johnson, William “Bill” Hogg, Elizabeth Bishendon, a number of anonymous bloggers who left comments and, last but not least, Automattic Inc., the makers of the blog software platform WordPress.

That’s akin to filing suit against Microsoft because someone wrote a Word document you didn’t like, or suing Ford Motor Company because you were hit by a drunk driver. I suppose Phyllis Morris figured that if anyone had deep enough pockets to pay off her $6 million lawsuit it would be the makers of WordPress.

Lawsuits like this are only filed for one purpose: to stifle the free expression of ideas and information by a free people. Morris clearly despised criticism and was willing to go to any extreme to stop people from saying things she didn’t like.

This type of lawsuit has occurred often enough to garner its own name: Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation, or SLAPP lawsuit. The sole purpose of a SLAPP lawsuit is to silence someone by the threat a massive judgment against them. In Morris’ case, she sued these individuals and Automattic Inc. for $6 million. That’s a big enough threat to scare most people into silence.

While this sort of lawsuit has already happened many times in Canada, this time the judge clearly saw it for what it was and ruled accordingly.

Let me step back a little so you have the full picture.

Phyllis Morris first filed the lawsuit against anyone she could find:Richard Johnson, William “Bill” Hogg, Elizabeth Bishendon, a number of anonymous blog commenters and the makers of the blogging platform WordPress.

As she was still mayor at the time the suit was filed, she managed to convince the Aurora city council to fund her lawsuit.

She then attempted to have the identities of the anonymous blog commenters revealed so she could name them specifically in her SLAPP lawsuit. She lost that case. Then she made the surprising announcement that she was dropping the case entirely.

I’m sure losing the election and subsequently being forced to fund the lawsuit herself both played a large part in her new-found common sense.

However, since it was Morris who dropped the lawsuit she was still on the hook for the consequences of her ill-advised actions, and defendants Johnson and Hogg found a unique section of law that allowed them to make a claim against Morris for their legal costs.

In a weird turn of events, Morris never even contested the motion for costs and that resulted in a default judgment against her for the legal costs for Johnson and Hogg. Elizabeth Bishenden had already settled previously, so she was not able to sue for costs.

This case is a resounding victory for common sense and our Right to Freedom of Speech, and sends a loud warning to politicians who think they can use public money to silence their critics through abusive actions in the courts.

Since the lawsuit filed against Johnson and Hogg was ruled to be a SLAPP lawsuit, they were entitled to what is called an “elevated award of costs”. This is meant as a deterrent to politicians or corporations who think they can silence dissent through punitive court cases, and it is a very good thing.

Here is the relevant section from the ruling by Master Thomas Hawkins:

[27] The following evidence before me is uncontradicted. Mayor Morris brought this action expressly in her capacity as Mayor of the Corporation of the Town of Aurora. Initially and up to December 14, 2010 she had access to Aurora municipality money to fund this litigation.

The action was commenced without any prior demand letter to Johnson, Hogg or Bishenden from Mayor Morris or her lawyers. The action was commenced without complying with the prior notice provisions of the Libel and Slander Act, R.S.O. 1990 ch. L-12 respecting broadcasts. (Johnson and Hogg take the position that Aurora Citizen “broadcasts” its content as that term is defined in the Libel and Slander Act).

The action was commenced three weeks prior to the municipal election in which Mayor Morris was seeking a second term as mayor. The action was commenced by notice of action rather than by statement of claim. In her notice of action Mayor Morris expressly sought damages of $6,000,000 from the defendants.

In an action for damages it is unusual for the plaintiff to claim a specific amount of damages in the notice of action. The notice of action was served on the defendants Johnson, Hogg and Bishenden immediately and without any statement of claim, in contravention of subrule 14.03 (4).

[28] I infer from these facts that Mayor Morris was not prepared to wait and see if a demand letter would have the desired effect of silencing Johnson, Hogg and Bishenden, and not prepared to wait until her lawyers prepared a statement of claim.

In my view, Mayor Morris wanted to hit Johnson, Hogg and Bishenden quickly and hard, in order to silence them as her critics sooner rather than later in the weeks leading up to the October 25, 2010 municipal elections.

[29] I therefore come to the conclusion that this action is indeed SLAPP litigation.

Morris was so desperate to shut up Johnson, Hogg and Bishenden that she couldn’t be bothered to file her lawsuit in a legal manner. She wanted these people silenced, and silenced immediately. That was all she cared about, and attaching a $6 million price tag to their Right to Freedom of Speech all but guaranteed the three would indeed be silenced.

That is just plain wrong.Abusive bully tactics from thin-skinned whiners like Phyllis Morris can never be permitted.

It’s obscene that, in a nation that supposedly prides itself on the Rights and Freedoms of every citizen, a politician at any level of government would dare try to extort a citizen into silence.

That Phyllis Morris now must pay back $21,275 in legal costs to Johnson and Hogg is the loudest and best “shot across the bow” I’ve ever had the pleasure to write about.

It’s refreshing to see our right to Freedom of Speech upheld so convincingly, and that a politician so clearly undeserving of elected office as Phyllis Morris was soundly put in her place.

 

In closing, I would urge you to read the entire 6-page ruling by Master Thomas Hawkins for yourself. It’s great reading!

 

My previous articles on the Phyllis Morris case:

If you enjoy the articles I write here on PostcardsFromTheRight.com, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

November 12, 2012

Why we must Support Marc Lemire’s Appeal of the Bizarre Federal Court ruling on Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act

Why-We-Must-Support-Marc-Lemire

Why-We-Must-Support-Marc-Lemire

As you no doubt already know, MP Brian Storseth’s Private Members Bill C-304, an Act to repeal Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, has passed the Canadian Parliament. However, it must still pass the Senate before this piece of freedom-crushing legislation will be gone for good.

Serial plaintiff Richard Warman is “Canada’s most offended man” according to Ezra Levant

Serial plaintiff Richard Warman is “Canada’s most offended man” according to Ezra Levant

In the meantime, Marc Lemire’s long legal battle with serial plaintiff Richard Warman continues. Warman is the man who Sun TV commentator Ezra Levant refers to as “Canada’s most offended man” because he is personally responsible for over half of all complaints before Canada’s Human Rights Commission.

Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley recently ruled in the case of Warman v. Lemire (view PDF of decision) and his decision was quite bizarre. It struck down the penalty clause of the Human Rights Act, Section 54, while simultaneously upholding the constitutionality of the freedom-killing Section 13.

If you think that is confusing, don’t worry. You’re not alone. Ezra Levant is also a little puzzled, and he’s done his best to explain what the federal court ruling means with some help from Chris Shafer of the Canadian Constitutional Foundation. You can watch that video at the bottom of this article.

It is important to remember that Marc Lemire is the only person to win their case in the 33 year history of the Canadian Human Rights Commission! He is the guy who finally broke their 100% conviction rate.

So far this case has eaten up 8 years of Marc Lemire’s life and the battle is still not over.

Since this is currently the law of the land until the bill to repeal Section 13 passes the Senate, Marc Lemire must continue his battle to have the law struck down on constitutional grounds.

But is it really necessary to appeal this ruling since Bill C-304 will inevitably pass the Senate?

Yes, it is, and here’s why.

First, at the moment there are dozens of Section 13 cases that are “on hold” pending the outcome of Marc Lemire’s case. Should Lemire decide NOT to appeal this ruling, then all those cases will be taken off hold and the unjust persecution of those Canadians will resume.

Second, we have no idea when Bill C-304 will pass the Senate, even though it’s practically guaranteed to do so. The problem lies, as I outlined above, with the time period between today and the day when the Bill C-304 is actually proclaimed into law. During this time period cases already “in the system” will move ahead, even though everyone knows the law will be repealed.

Marc Lemire

Marc Lemire

Since it is currently the law of the land, it will be applied as such, despite the impending repeal of Section 13.

As I see it, if for no other reason than supporting Lemire’s case prevents all these other cases from resuming, it is well worth supporting.

So I urge you to please join with me in supporting Marc Lemire’s Constitutional Challenge of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

You can donate online through PayPal (you don’t need a PayPal account to donate as long as you have a credit card) by using this link:

http://christopherdiarmani.com/support-marc-lemire

If you prefer not to use PayPal you can mail your donation directly to Marc Lemire at:

Marc Lemire
Attn: Free Speech Legal Defense Fund
762 Upper James St, Suite 384
Hamilton, Ontario L9C 3A2

But I don’t support what Mr. Lemire says,” you’re thinking.

So what? That’s not the issue, is it?

I don’t have to agree with what someone says in order to support their right to say it. That’s the whole problem with Section 13 of the Human Rights Act! It takes Free Speech and turns it into Approved Speech.

The problem with Approved Speech should be obvious. So long as you’re on the side of those who get to decide, you’re okay. But what happens when the political climate changes and you’re no longer on the side of the “approvers“?

Unless you are content to live in Orwell’s world, support Marc Lemire. He is the good guy in this fight and he has earned our support, if for no other reason than he is the first and only person to ever win a case against the Canadian Human Rights Commission! Their 100% conviction rate was secure until they went after him.

 

Ezra Levant and Chris Schafer of the Canadian Constitution Foundation discuss Federal Court ruling in Warman v. Lemire.

 

Ezra Levant: Good Riddance to Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act

If you enjoy the articles I write here on PostcardsFromTheRight.com, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

October 31, 2012

America is NOT the greatest country in the world.

America-is-no-longer-the-greatest-nation-in-the-world

America-is-no-longer-the-greatest-nation-in-the-world

“America is NOT the greatest country in the world… but it could be.”

I have to admit I was quite blown away to watch this short video clip from the HBO series “The Newsroom“.   It was forwarded to me by a friend who called it the most honest three minutes of television ever.  I have to admit he… is correct.

Watch it for yourself.

Be amazed that such truth and honesty about the current state of America could ever make it onto America’s airwaves, just as I was.

That honest appraisal of the current State of the Union is a tragic reality. But we can change all that in just a few more days… can’t we?

 

 

If you enjoy the articles I write here on PostcardsFromTheRight.com, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

October 28, 2012

Freedom of Speech Personified: Pat Condell tells it like it is!

Pat-Condell-Straight-Talk-About-Radical-Islam

Pat-Condell-Straight-Talk-About-Radical-Islam

While Pat Condell and I will obviously disagree on the topic of God, we agree on far more than we disagree.

He is an outspoken proponent of Freedom of Speech and is, along with many other European commentators, doing his best to alert the Western World to the threat posed by radical islam and it’s murderous followers.

Pat Condell, to quote the Wikipedia entry for him,

240px-Pat_Condellis an English writer, political commentator, comedian and atheist internet personality. He performed alternative comedy shows during the 1980s and 1990s in the United Kingdom, and won a Time Out Comedy Award in 1991. He was also a regular panellist on BBC Radio 1’s “Loose Talk”.

Pat Condell is a strong proponent of free speech and critic of religion.

From early 2007, he began posting short monologues denouncing religion to a number of video sharing websites, consequently receiving numerous death threats. As of October 2012, Pat Condell’s YouTube channel has over 165,000 subscribers and 41 million views.

Here is one of many of Pat Condell’s awesome monologues about Islam, the Religion of Peace.

 

If you enjoy the articles I write here on PostcardsFromTheRight.com, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

October 12, 2012

Pastor Terry Jones Barred Entry. So Much for Freedom of Speech in Canada…

Pastor-Terry-Jones-Quran

Florida Pastor Terry Jones is best known for his outspoken opposition to islam.  He made international headlines when he burned a Koran two years ago on the anniversary of 9/11.   He also created and promoted “International Burn a Koran Day” as a way of protesting against radical islam.

Terry Jones was scheduled to debate Toronto imam on the film Innocence of Muslims outside Ontario’s legislature Thursday evening, but instead spent over 4 hours being searched and interrogated by Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) agents before being denied entry into the country.

Eventually both Terry Jones and his assistant, Wayne Sapp, were handed letters from CBSA explaining they would not be allowed into Canada.

“Dr. Jones’ letter said they were denying him entry to Canada because years ago in Germany, when he lived there, he was fined by the German government for using the title doctor,” said Fran Ingram of Stand Up America Now, the U.S. organization that promotes Mr. Jones.

The CBSA letter also demanded that Mr. Jones provide a criminal records check before attempting to  enter into Canada again.

While the CBSA is arguing they had valid reasons for keeping Pastor Jones out of Canada it just doesn’t pass the smell test.

CBSA cited a note from German officials who were upset that Jones used the designation “Dr.” from an institution they refused to recognize and a claim that they didn’t have enough information about an alleged breach of peace bond against Mr. Sapp as the reasons why they were not allowing the two into Canada.

Yeah, okay.  That’s sketchy at best, and disingenuous to say the very least.

For reasons unknown, the Canadian government was not interested in allowing a Christian Pastor to debate a muslim imam in Ontario.

Odd, since they were perfectly willing to allow radical muslim Dr. Bilal Philps to speak at an islamic conference in Calgary earlier this year. Philips has been kicked out of two countries (Germany & Kenya) and banned from two others (Britain & Australia) for his outspoken views on homosexuality, among other things.

But since Philips was born in Canada it’s completely okay for him to speak, right?  But an American Christian pastor? Forget about it.

I guess that means that Ann Barnhardt is also unwelcome in Canada since she is

1) a Christian, and
2) burned a Koran and posted the video on YouTube.

It would seem that Freedom of Speech is based, not on our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but on which religion you happen to preach.

Islam 1, Christianity 0.

How very open-minded of the Canadian government…

If you enjoy the articles I write here on PostcardsFromTheRight.com, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

October 9, 2012

Freedom of Speech: The 27th Annual George Orwell Free Speech Awards

guilty-until-proven-innocent

Imagine you are the parents of three young children.

Imagine one of those children runs and falls into your precious little girl, landing harshly on her head.

Discovering your child’s injury, you rush your child to the hospital where you expect your child will immediately receive the medical attention she requires.

Never in your wildest nightmares would you believe that this act, caring for the well-being of your child, would be the beginning of a 4-year nightmare at the hands of medical professionals, Child and Family Community Services, the RCMP and the criminal justice system.

It is utterly inconceivable that you would be arrested, interrogated for hours while police ignore your pleas to find out how your injured child is; you are charged with criminal charges and have your children taken from you and placed in foster care… all based on the word of a social worker and a doctor.

Both you and your wife cry your innocence to anyone who will listen.  Nobody does.

Presumption of innocence?  Not a chance.  This is Canada, where presumption of innocence died long ago.

Police tell you that you will never see your children again unless and until you tell them “the truth” about what you did to your child.   The problem is that nobody wants to hear the truth as it doesn’t fit with their pre-determined conclusion of your guilt.

A fourth child is born during this horrific tribulation and to your horror that child too is stolen from you by government workers drunk with the power of the state.

Paul and Zabeth Bayne

That is the barest outline of the nightmare BC’s Paul and Zabeth Bayne lived through at the hands of a system that refused to accept the truth: they never harmed their child.

For a full description from Zabeth Bayne herself, watch the video below as Zabeth and Paul Bayne are awarded the George Orwell Free Speech Award for 2012 by Victoria lawyer and Free Speech advocate Douglas Christie.

Now, why is a couple who were put through hell by a government agency deserving an award for Freedom of Speech?  It’s not for the ordeal they went through, although that was truly horrific; it’s for how this brave couple responded to their persecution.

They fought back.

They patently refused, at every turn, to accept the presumption of guilt heaped upon them by every level of government and our justice system.

They won.

After their family was finally reunited after 4 long years apart, the Baynes decided they were not willing to allow their ordeal to happen to another mother and father.

They founded an organization, Evidence Based Medicine and Social Investigation, to educate parents, health care workers, police and government bureaucrats in the realities of childhood traumatic injury and to the simple fact that there are many, many more explanations for childhood injuries other than what some doctors, bureaucrats and legislators would like to believe.

Evidence Based Medicine and Social Investigation was founded in the wake of their victory against a system that presumed them guilty.

They now host an annual conference bringing together parents, doctors, police and legislators in an effort to educate them all, so that the nightmare the Bayne family lived through won’t happen again.  (Visit their Facebook page)

Here is the Canadian Free Speech League’s Douglas Christie presenting the 2012 George Orwell Free Speech Award to the Bayne family and Zabeth Bayne’s own recounting of their horrific story.


If you enjoy the articles I write here on PostcardsFromTheRight.com, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

October 2, 2012

Canadian Islamic Hypocrisy at its finest…

anti-islam-film

This video clip is of an anti-American demonstration in Toronto, Ontario, Canada where Muslims marched on the American Embassy.  Look for the two enormous lies that the Tonto imam peddles in the hopes that nobody will notice.

In case you missed them…

1. “Free speech does not give you a right to go and attack somebody’s faith.”

Yes. It does. In fact that is the entire purpose of free speech. It’s not that free speech allows you to say how nice the weather is, when you meet your lover at the cafe. It is that it allows you quite specifically to attack someone’s faith whether that is religious, political and even scientific. That is not just a side effect of free speech. It is the actual purpose of it.

2. “If anyone would be attacking the Christian faith or the Jewish Faith Muslims would be hand and hand with them.”

Well, since pretty much 99% of all the attacks on Christians and Jews for being Christians and Jews are in fact by Muslims then, of course, this point is rather questionable.

Its rather amazing what will draw a muslim or a herd of muslims out of the woodwork isn’t it? Not human rights, not the mass extermination of Jews, not the murder or disfiguring of little girls……. but the bruised sensibilities of thin-skinned, child molesting, homicidal, fanatical imams and mullahs will move mountains won’t they????

The rabid edicts of puffed up, mutton molesting, bearded islamic blowhards and windbags will bring them out in droves………… go figure!!!!

Where were these self righteously indignant people during the trial of the Toronto 18?

Where were these people during the trial of Mohammad Shafia?

Where were these people when the islamic misunderstander Mouna Diab was arrested in Montreal?

Where were these people when arrest warrants were put out for the Al-Shabab supporters in Winnipeg?

Where were these people when a muslim madman (excuse the redundancy) entered a ready-room in Ft Hood screaming Allah Ackbar-God is Great!!! and murdered 13 people in cold blood including an unborn child?

Where were these people when a terrified woman, the sexual plaything of two Taliban men, was knelt down and then, after a terrifying display of poor marksmanship, had her skull blown open by a few rounds from a Kalashnikov?

Where were these people when little Neha Munir, a 5 year old Pakistani girl who suffered the love of allah and was repeatedly raped to the point of near death?

Where were these people when countless women and girls suffer the love of their muslim husbands and in-laws and have acid thrown in their faces for the unspeakable crime of wanting an education?

Where were these people when the last ragged gasps of a self-immolated woman bid her farewell from a lifetime of being beaten senseless in accordance with her muslim husband’s bruised ego and the edicts of the lunatic muhammad?

Where were these people in the hours, days, week and months that followed the World Trade Center bombings (both of them)?

Where were these people during the trial of that muslim sophisticate who murdered his daughter Aqsa Parvez??

They were….. where all muslims are found when the truth of islam needs to be confronted………. hiding under the rock of hypocrisy…… their home away from home.

The reality, and I am so very glad these people came out to march, is that muslims, the catatonic devotees of the cancerous ideology of islam, are a sneering, hostile, treacherous, ungrateful, murderous, treasonous, threatening, deceitful, backward, barbarous, savage and duplicitous mass of humanity that is completely incompatible with Western culture and society and all of our values.

(more…)

If you enjoy the articles I write here on PostcardsFromTheRight.com, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

September 28, 2012

The US Government believes you’re a right-wing terrorist if…

knowyourrights

The US Government believes you’re a right-wing terrorist if… you have a brain and aren’t afraid to use it.

The US Government routinely demeans, denigrates, ridicules, detests and prosecutes individuals for the “thought crime” of believing what the Constitution of the Constitution of the United States of America actually says.

The United States Government has, for a very long time now, had their priorities completely screwed up.

Last year a report out of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) titled “Right-Wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment“.  In that venerable piece of propaganda the DHS minions came to such mind-numbing conclusions as:

  • The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.
  • The high volume of purchases and stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by rightwing extremists in anticipation of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary concern to law enforcement.
  • Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities.

Let us not forget the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms “Fast and Furious” program, in which these morons couldn’t dump guns into the hands of known felons and drug cartels fast enough, all because they despise guns in the hands of law-abiding American citizens.  Their gross incompetence and stupidity only managed to get US Border Services Agent Brian A. Terry murdered.  It did nothing to further their aim of stripping Americans of their Second Amendment Rights.

Fallout from the BATF’s Fast and Furious scandal is still with us, and with any luck will help aid the downfall of “The Anointed One“, aka “The Empty Suit“, aka “America’s First Half-Black President” aka “The Coward In Chief “or as he calls himself today, Barack Hussein Obama in just a few short weeks.

Barack Hussein Obama will go down as the most cowardly president in American history, stripping that title from Jimmy Carter.  Who knew it would be possible for a US President to be more cowardly in the face of islamic terrorism than Jimmy Carter?

The latest from the mighty moron squad is the US Department of Justice (DOJ) training manual called “Terrorism Training For Law Enforcement“, in which something as simple as a bumper sticker on your vehicle or even having a map sitting on your passenger seat is deemed sufficient reason to violate your rights and search both you and your vehicle without a warrant.

(more…)

If you enjoy the articles I write here on PostcardsFromTheRight.com, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

September 25, 2012

Junking English for the Sake of IngSoc

the-ministry-of-truth-orwell

The great failed experiment called the United Nations has come up with another bizarre notion.

This time it’s the outlawing of speech.

I don’t know if the Marxist deadheads hanging out in the tombstone-shaped, 37-floor UN building in Manhattan intend to prohibit all speech to bring complete silence to the land or just continue their rout of demonizing and redefining select, politically-incorrect English words like the Durham District School Board in Ontario did, as was recently brought to our attention by Christopher di Armani.

Or perhaps these self-avowed UN brain boxes overshot their intellectual capacities in an attempt to continue the development of Dr. Ludwik Lejzer Zamenhof’s fabricated, international language known as Esperanto.

The Polish oculist and linguist’s noble idea was that a bland, uninteresting, artificial form of Newspeak would be an easy-to-learn, politically-neutral communication method capable of transcending nationalities while fostering international peace among races speaking a multitude of languages.

Personally, I don’t care what these bonehead, skin-discoloured alien illiterates do who speak the politically-incorrect English as a Second Language (ESL).

I grew up in a household where the motto was:

“Say what you mean and mean what you say.”

That truism still stands.

In other words, be truthful. Don’t be skirting the obvious by trying to wallpaper over negatives with positives.

I remember neighbour ladies avoiding uncomfortable words, whispering euphemisms like “the poor old dear has expired.” Having “expired” sounded deliciously naughty and unfit for children’s ears, so I naturally wanted to hear more.

When my mother cut through the fog that had obscured my comprehension, I protested.

“If the lady died, why in thunder didn’t somebody simply say so?”

It’s an age-old problem. Preference leans toward lying to cover up ugly truths with snaky words or otherwise using vocabulary as a powerful people-control tool.

Meanwhile, numbskull Marxist apparatchiks are trying to trash the English language. Again. Still.

(more…)

If you enjoy the articles I write here on PostcardsFromTheRight.com, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

Go To Top
Get Adobe Flash player